In dating advice today, women are often told to date more than one guy at a time as a way to prevent getting too attached to any one guy until he gets attached to her.

I’d say it’s bad advice. Why? Because I have heard guys in the manosphere say so over and over again.

For one, men value loyalty. A high quality guy who finds out you have several other irons in the fire is more likely to move on than engage in some silly bidding war for your affection. Why should he? Next!

Two, women may be projecting here. Thanks to a concept called “preselection” women will often be more attracted to a man who is with another attractive woman. Personally, I consider any guy with another gal off limits, but Red Pill field studies show this often works in a man’s favor. Why? Women assume (perhaps wrongly) that other women have done the due diligence and so it’s a form of subliminal shorthand to indicate a guy is high value. However, men say the reverse is not true for women.

Three, men don’t share well. If he’s OK with you dating (and especially sleeping with) other guys while you are dating (and/or sleeping with) him, he’s already determined he will not commit to you — ever. Even if he has not said it. Even if he denies it.

Four, it invites drama and games. Men don’t like drama and games.

Five, it triggers an ancient and long held fear in men of being cuckholded — that should you get pregnant, the baby might not be his. Women don’t have to worry a baby “might not be hers” so women don’t really understand how deeply ingrained and visceral this repulsion is in men.

Six, men who tolerate women dating other guys often do so because they are themselves seeing multiple women. Plus, if you are busy with other guys, that gives him time to seek out other women! Is this really what you want?

Seven, there’s a reason there is historical precedence of a man having more than one wife, but there is not the reverse. Why? Because while a man can reproduce simultaneously with as many women (and their wombs) as he can manage, women can only be pregnant with one child at a time, so there is no biological advantage for him of you having more than one mate. Today, with birth control, sex and babies may not be as tightly connected but our brains are still wired the same as 1000 years ago.

Eight, it puts you in the “not marriage material” camp. No guy wants to marry the town bicycle, as the old saying goes. When it comes to settling down, even in these “modern times” guys truly care about this — men prefer women who have had fewer sexual (or better yet no) partners over more — no matter what your gal pals tell you.

Nine, it likely will cloud your judgement as far as any one guy. Be honest — are you dating multiple guys because it’s a way to psychologically deal with the fact that one of those guys (the one you REALLY want) won’t commit to YOU? Are you dragging out something you yourself really should close the door on? Better to date one guy at a time, both of you make a decision one way or the other if it’s possibly going to progress or not by date three or so, and act accordingly. Don’t drag this out.

Ten, guys just don’t like it. High quality men especially won’t tolerate it. Don’t you want a high quality man rather than one who is too timid to draw the line in fear of losing you?

The “date multiple guys at a time” advice is just another example of women thinking they can act and behave like (Alpha) men. It doesn’t work that way, especially with Alpha men.

What do you think? Is dating multiple guys at a time good, in your opinion? Why or why not? Do you have stories of it working out well? Badly? Please share in the comments.

(Usual disclaimer, not all men are like that, not all women are like that. These are generalizations that apply “most of the time.”)

I already voted as a human. Thank you for your concern. This isn’t an issue for bears. Unlike their human counterparts, girl bears don’t dither over mating decisions. They go with their first instincts.
In all seriousness, human females should not do this. What it demonstrates is that she doesn’t take dating seriously and she doesn’t take the guys she is dating seriously. I think that women who do this, do it because they can. It must be nice to have somebody buy all those meals and attend to you.

RPG,
While we know that you object to the “three date rule”, here is a sound reason for it.

@ Fuzzie, it must be a relief to be a bear — I like the simplicity of it! Humans tend to way overthink things.

As for the three date rule (if she doesn’t sleep with you by date 3, next!) I can see the rationale from the male point of view, he wants to confirm she’s into him so much she can’t wait. From a gal’s standpoint, I am not so sure the three date rule is wise because she risks racking up her N count if she’s dating guys who are just looking to get to date 3, add a notch to his conquest sheet, then bail (unfortunately I have seen that happen to friends — a lot.) Another example of the two genders having differing, and competing, “rules of engagement.”

Great post! This is fantastic advice for any woman in the dating world to strongly consider.
As a single man active in this entire process, I can add that it is a considerable turn-off for me to engage with any woman that has multiple irons in the fire. Why? For a number of reasons, but I think you touched on it with #9 – Clouded Judgement. I don’t have many strong expectations on the front end when dating, but if I’m going to focus what I bring to the table on one woman, I expect that focus back. There is simply no way someone can focus on an individual when they’ve invited the herd at feeding time. Been there, done that, got a T-shirt. This age-old ‘bad BFF advice’ should fall to the wayside when it comes to matters of the heart. For most, it translates to endless, long-term frustration for many of the other reasons you listed. Dating should never be about who is pursuing you the hardest out of a group. I’ve experienced this situation multiple times and those pursuing the hardest are almost guaranteed to the be the ones that ghost you once the conquest is achieved. Poof, gone!
Many people are back in the dating realm as a form to get over an ex. There may be some truth to the cliche, “The best way to get over someone is to get under someone else.” But, notice… that didn’t say get under 5 other people.

RPG,
For myself, the three date rule need not involve sex but, there should be some token of being earnest about going forward.I don’t want to spend any more time in orbit. I have done enough of that already. It is curious that the concept of a beta orbiter is so culturally recent.

I have actually heard more than one high quality manospheriasn say it was the one gal who good heartedly swatted him off initially (while clearly signaling she was into him) that ended up winning his heart. Don’t be too easy, ladies, it may make him wonder how easily you would cheat! (perhaps another post topic.)

Various “trans-gender” types for your survey you do not have.
Not really needed, Yoda.
There’s enough options already. 😛

Also missing bears in your survey you are
This is a much bigger problem.
Wouldn’t have wanted accusations of specism thrown around… 😉

What do you think? Is dating multiple guys at a time good, in your opinion?
Perhaps it can work for a statistically insignificant minority, but even then ONLY in very specific situations, probably 2 guys at most, and with corresponding prerequisites.

1. Everyone involved would have to know about the circumstances. I think both men and women have a right to know if they are a “plate” or not.

2. None of the people involved, most especially the woman, should not want marriage. I would go so far as to say that this path is only for women who do not plan on ever marrying or having children…too much drama otherwise.

3. Agreements with everyone involved to still practice safe sex and use proper birth control methods. Permanent ones, like vasectomies or even tubaligation could be used, too.

4. Full acceptance of points #3 and #6. If either of these are not what the woman wants, she is 100% better off doing traditional dating or coupling. Most females hate the idea of being in an LTR with a guy who will never commit, and this fact should be taken into account.

…he’s OK with you dating (and especially sleeping with) other guys while you are dating (and/or sleeping with) him…
This is the opinion of my guy, and a lot of it has to do with the fact we are “just” FwB, even after 9 years. He encourages me to see other people but it is not something I have resources for currently. I’d need to have even more extra/disposable income than what I already spend on him plus myself, work less than my typical 50+ hours a week, and be comfortable sharing intimacy with yet another person. While I appreciate his lack of jealousy, this is too much work for me right now.

And actually ladies (hope you don’t mind Dan) since most of the male bloggers don’t post photos of themselves, it’s easy for women to think, “Oh he’s just some loser living in his mom’s basement anyway.” Dan isn’t as shy, so let’s have a look to see if he’s the kind of guy a gal might hope to cuddle up for a lifetime with, shall we?

I think it maybe depends on the depth of your relationships. If you’re dating broadly, never spending more than a few dates with any one person, it probably doesn’t matter much. But if you’re “going steady” with at least one guy, then, yeah, dating other ones is probably indicative of someone’s commitment issues – your’s or his.

Fuzzie brings up a very good point re: beta orbiters. At no time should a man be regulated to such a status by someone he is supposedly dating. Also, the woman needs to make it crystal clear that she is not in the market for commitment/marriage. That way, it doesn’t waste the time/resources or harm the emotions of a commitment-minded male.

I could post the screenshot of your ex girlfriend’s drunk text on Valentine’s too, if you like! 😉 That will peak the interest I bet! (See it yourself on Dan’s blog, ladies…too funny!) Trigger warning, prepare to, ahem, blush…

And there lies the issue with most of these situations… People are not honest about what they’re really looking for, or it changes by each passing day. I pass no judgement on those that just want extremely casual. To each their own! But, I do have issues with those saying one thing and meaning another.
Your points are excellent. Communication is everything, no matter what the circumstances.

I completely agree.
Communication is a huge part of a relationship’s starting foundation, regardless of what type it is. Sadly, so few people (especially women, it would seem) are introspective enough to truly *know* what they want in the long term. Thus, they make incredibly lousy decisions that only serve to give instant, rather than delayed-yet-better, gratification.

Well, this advice is based on the premise that a woman values a single, monogamous relationship about all else. If that is true, maybe this applies. If she wants to explore, or wants to enjoy singlehood, or wants to just date, or wants to have sex with many men, or really is polyamorous, or would rather a guy woo her…may not apply.

I’d say it would depend on the goal. I always thought dating was the “see if we like each other” phase, and then commitment was the time you…commit. He says, “I don’t want to see anyone else…what do you think about going exclusive?” and you say, “Me too! Me too!” and that’s how it goes. At least, that’s how it went. But I haven’t dated in a long long while.

I say it depends on where you are in the process. If you are in the 1st couple of dates/ getting to know you phase, yes everyone should be dating as many as the can arrange. 3 cups of coffee with three different dudes in 5 days is not the same as walking around with three different types of baby batter in her jizz box.

Time is the one resource money cannot buy and we all have 24 hours in a day. No more, no less. It should be manged like the precious resource it is

At some point, if you want the LTR, you need to drop plates and I’d say sooner rather then latter

Seeing that “men are the gatekeepers of commitment, women the gatekeepers of sex”, then I’m not really sure this makes sense for women.

Any woman can get sex. But if the ultimate goal of a woman is to get commitment from men (which is harder than sex), then spinning plates like a man might do doesn’t make sense. It ultimately devalues her.

It would be like some beta male who runs around “falling in love” with every girl he meets. He is an emotional whore, giving away his most valuable asset cheaply. And women are repulsed by him.

Acquainting to multiple people is all part of the discovery process, and I agree it completely depends on where you’re at. Talking to a bunch of people is much different than having multiple dates and getting romantic. This is the fine line that baffles me… “I don’t want to date or be involved with multiple people.” Then don’t. It’s in your hands. If you want to, fine. But be clear about that intention instead of testing the waters first.
When someone communicates that to me, I have the expectation that they are not out with a different person each night of the week and making out with each one at the end of the night (or more.)
I’ve experienced enough Serial Daters to know the difference between those looking for the potential of something real versus being engulfed in the thrill of the hunt.
If dating new contacts constantly is a lifestyle for you instead of a means to an end, it should speak volumes about what you’re looking for. Just be real about that with those contacts that interest you.

Good post, one I’m going to save for eventual comment on my own place if I end up doing a link round-up.

The problem when it comes to dating is more pragmatism than anything. As I outlined at my own place, courtship fails in this regard, but dating multiple guys happens to be the answer for those who see that courtship is a failure, as Thomas Umstattd Jr. does, for example. Ultimately, they fail to see how equally a failure that is, for the reasons you describe – they fail to think it out in practicality and simply Monday morning quarterback as most everyone commenting on dating and marriage do. If he didn’t close his comments on the source post I referred to, I’d send a link to this post (and mine) and see what kind of comment he has.

To wit, I got done transcribing the antique diary of a woman over the weekend (no more details because it would out me), which happened to capture almost an entire courtship (for lack of a better term, the period between her meeting the guy and marrying him) at the turn of the century. Almost every day (or every other day at most) after she references meeting this man, there was a reference to a date with the same man. I’d have to go back through my transcript to find out how many: Just did, she referred to this man 276 times in the space of a year’s worth of entries almost always denoting doing something with regards to him, subtract about 20 or so for multiple references in the same day, but you get the idea.

I don’t have access to a scanner to post any of it, but also came into some 50’s era romance comics I’ve been reading. The moral of the story for one of them is how a particular woman was fooling around with multiple men and the reputation it got her. Again consistent with what you wrote.

Overall, arm-chair prognostication from people who don’t know what they’re talking about, put to people that just don’t think about it.

Dan,
She should have left well enough alone and not rocked the boat. That would be a test of patience for you.
I have been acquainted with firemen. It is tough for them to keep a relationship together. The hours they work are so strange.

Well said Copperfox. Too many gals just don’t get the gatekeeper concept. I suppose it’s “old fashioned” but the old ways often work because generations and generations were spent trying and failing to fine tune them. The “sexual revolution” and “free love” were concepts born of extreme hubris and/or a complete denial of human nature and gender dynamics. The result? The mess and confusion we see today.

@ fuzzie I found online dating to be just as scattershot as meeting people in person. Maybe worse bc there was this odd “job interview” contrived quality about it. Rarely were people in person the persona they portrayed online. That said, I didn’t give it much time to be honest before I decided meeting people in real life just going about my day worked better for me. As you say, w online dating first you have to even make a connection, then there’s this emailing/phone call stage that’s pretty time consuming, then finally there is the face to face where it seems to be a yes or a no on each side fairly immediately. When people meet spontaneously one skips all that lead up, and jump right to yes or no and then the “getting to know you” phase follows. I suppose if someone goes the online route they would need to realize, like it or not, one has to make a fairly dramatic visual and personality impression to even be considered. With strategy that’s not hard to do (all that pua peacocking advice would help w this) . However one quickly learns some people photograph much better than they present in person, as well as the opposite.

In short, there’s a lot stacked against making and finding a true lasting connection these days, and no clear path for navigating from point a to b.

Tarn,
The worst of it is spending the better part of a night looking for someone that looks like a possible, composing a message, and not hearing a a thing back.

RPG,
If meeting in person works for you, then, stick with it. A few months ago Free Northerner had a chart of how people meet over time. I am beginning to think that all venues that worked don’t do so now or won’t in the future.

For men, we are told not to approach women. Don’t talk to her at the gym, she is there to work out. Don’ t bother her at starbucks because she wants to enjoy her coffee and get on with her busy girl power day, dont talk to her at the bar, she is there to hang out with her girlfriends and dance… by her self; cannot hit on them at work because of sexual harassment

One of the things I noticed was most women are not open to being approached most of the time, so when you do run across one you best get to chatting…. or better yet talk to her any damn way.

as for online dating…. if that doesn’t make you hate the opposite sex nothing will yet at the same time…. best not talk to her at the gym because she is only there to workout…..

Point being, best to ignore what women say on the topic of when to approach. Just like 98% of what women say For online dating open with a a hey you/ hey there. Nothing more. Its a low investment approach to a low investment environment.

Don’t talk to her at the gym, she is there to work out. Don’ t bother her at starbucks because she wants to enjoy her coffee and get on with her busy girl power day, dont talk to her at the bar, she is there to hang out with her girlfriends and dance.

From the opposite end of this:
I have guys talk to me in line at the grocery, at the gym, while I’m working/ringing them out, etc. I’m a naturally friendly person so don’t mind the conversations and will happily engage in interesting topics. Some want to just talk, but more try to ask me out…to which I decline, but will give a short hug to soften the blow. (It’s been shown that verbal rejection can chemically hurt as much as a slap to the face, and I prefer to not cause pain.)

Thing is, I can usually tell pretty quickly which ones are going to sway the conversation towards a date request. This makes me dread the rejection part because they’re wasting their time and should be using it on someone who could potentially say “yes”. I wish there was a way to let them know before they spend too much time on me.
Is there?

RPG,
Thanks for the offer but, I haven’t signed on in over two years, maybe longer.

Tarn,
OkCupid has algorithims that give a clue to personality compatibility It was there on their profiles in terms of percentages. Reading profiles was a waste but, looking at candid photos was telling.

The thought of going back to it makes me ill. Maybe, I should accept that the universe was trying to tell me something, me and the eighty percent of men that women find below average in attraction according to OkCupid’s own research.

@ Ton, very true. Thing is one can always always come up with some random reason to talk to someone… Maybe guys are always thinking of it as a pick up, because guys don’t just talk to girls for no reason, but the secret is most girls don’t know that! So long as it doesn’t feel to “pick-upy” chances are she’ll think you are just being friendly. If she reacts all bitc#y, well she’s done you a favor by pre-screening herself off the list! If she’s friendly, well then after some rapport…come up with some reason to get together/meet up/talk again… Do you think Liz’s Mike honestly wanted to STUDY? Lol. But she had no idea… Covert love opps, slide in under the bitc# shield radar.

Tarn it’s tricky, I usually just act clueless, like I didn’t notice the pick up, somehow exit gracefully, no rejection needed. But where you live people are more aggressive about it so maybe that wouldn’t work.

Yeah, it likely comes from being relatively close to the city, unfortunately. When someone says “it’s been great talking to you, how about I take you out for a coffee?”…Not much of a way to act clueless without coming off as either incredibly stupid or a total bitch. Neither of which is an acceptable option.

True tarn, east coast is way different than where I am. When I visited NYC I was completely off guard by how direct the ioi’s were. It was unmistakable! Where I live there’s always some plausible deniability…is he just nice or is he chatting me up? Makes the clueless thing much easier to pull off.

If a guy is really direct and I am not interested, I employ plausible deniability. “Wow, I am super flattered! You made my day. I totally would but I have a boyfriend, sorry!” It works well, too…

The easy answer to the question is “NO.” If a woman is going to be a slut, then be a slut. If she wants to get married she should be courting, not dating and certainly not hooking up. That’s why women don’t “date” any more. It isn’t that it was “ownership” as much as it didn’t reflect reality. If it’s just a polite fiction so you don’t have to introduce the guy as “Mom, this is Carl, we started schtupping a few weeks ago and we’re kind of exclusive now.”

It fits well within this post, so I’m going to hand you something that’s been bothering me for a while, which was prompted by that post about “isn’t my life complicated enough?” Buckle up Bloom and don’t take this personally, and what follows does NOT apply to a virgin. K?

The question “Isn’t my life complicated enough?” is actually a request for the guy to keep plowing and see where it gets him. It’s a massive shit-test but posed as a question it actually removes the *judgment* from the equation and replaces it with- you guessed it -solipsism. Asking “Isn’t my life complicated enough” is really asking him to give the woman what she wants without any complications. It’s an admission that she wants it but at the same time doesn’t want the complications that would result… so the message is

“be the man, solve the problem and we’ll both get what we want.”

Think it through. It’s avoiding the finality of saying “no” because… well… he’s hot and maybe… somehow… who knows? It avoids the issue of having to admit (especially to herself) that she has standards she won’t compromise because to ask the question is proof she doesn’t have said standards. I’m not talking about a standard that rejects a repulsive gamma, I’m talking about a guy like your Hercules who is probably a far worse husband-material choice than a repulsive but loyal gamma would be… but… he’s hot and he trips her switches so instead of a “NO” he gets a massive shit test. Again, think it through. What happens when he passes that shit test?

“I don’t know how it happened! It just happened!”

Let’s try “courting” instead of dating. No courting unless you’re looking for marriage. Not looking for marriage? NEXT! Hooking up? “I’ve got a dog that does that but I’m not a bitch in heat. If that’s what you’re interested in I can call him for you…”

If a woman wants a husband her standard should be “Is this guy marriage material?” If no, tell him “NO” in no uncertain terms and don’t ever waver. Women already know that answering that question isn’t easy, but it has a lot to do with his character and how strongly she’s attracted to him. How much is enough? Only she can answer that.

If yes, she reaches the next decision point: “Does he see me as marriage material?” That’s a double-whammy because it depends on his socio-sexual rank. If he’s RP aware, then a significant part of his answer will be wrapped around how attracted to him he thinks she is and now she’s looking at the 3-date rule (more on that later) because for him that’s a good rule of thumb.

If she thinks he’s marriage material and he thinks she’s marriage material, the only question left is whether he’s in a marrying mood *now* or if it’s just a general goal. He may not be and that’s where you’d hope he has enough integrity to be honest… although there isn’t a whole lot of reason to lie about stuff like that at this point because if a guy has the basics and knows game, it’s put out or get out, there are plenty of fish in the sea. If he is, does she really want this guy to get away?

So… If all systems are go, she should be wearing pretty underwear and give him a chance to see how it looks on the floor sooner rather than later. I was picking up a date once (we’d flirted a bit on campus but this was only the second “date”) and we got about half-way from her door to the car when she stopped and said “No.” She grabbed me by the arm and pulled me back inside and upstairs to her room. She closed the door, locked it and while she was getting undressed she said “I’m really hungry and I’m really horny so the food can wait til later.” I assure you, it made a *huge* impression on me. We had a pizza delivered. Later.

As to ways to avoid the 3-date rule, forget the baking cookies thing. This is another one of a woman’s standards she has to be able to articulate- at least for herself. If all systems are not “go” then there is no reason to drop her panties. If all systems are go she should be busy wearing him out. They can talk later. And if she can walk to the kitchen to make him a sandwich afterward, he didn’t do a good enough job. Go ahead and tell him I said so.

So, are they both looking for a life partner for this thing called marriage? If his answer is no, move on. If her answer is no, she should stay home.

Does she believe he’s marriage material? If not, NEXT! If yes, the question is whether he sees her as marriage material. If no, NEXT! If yes, all she has to do is secure commitment and there are many different positions to experiment with.

Ok, she banged him a few times. System check. Are all systems still go? No? Identify the problem, stand by to bail out. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. All systems still go? *Now* start with the steaks and sammiches and afterward help him exercise off those calories.

The problem is in that time period in which she’s either trying to decide whether he’s marriage material or trying to find out if he sees her as marriage material. The question becomes one of “How does she communicate that she’s very attracted to him and she’d really like to rip his clothes off and wear him out without actually doing so *and* without explaining what her reasons are?”

Ever wonder why guys are so fascinated with breasts? It’s cause that’s where God put your nipples, girls. There are two reliable indicators of sexual arousal for women that can’t be faked. One is vaginal lubricity and the other is erect nipples, and neither of those work all the time. Since women are the way they are, the only visible indication a woman is really attracted has to do with her nipples, so it leads to a single question-

Why do you women insist on trying to hide it?

Instead of reaching for he bandaids and a padded bra, get rid of the bra, go with a shelf-bra (leaves the nipples exposed) or use those sticky thingies that do the black-magic boob adjustment but leaves them free to bounce around without a bra.

Seriously. Most guys are idiots and don’t have a clue what the subconscious signals of interest are that women display for a man they find attractive, but if your response to his approach is a big smile and your high beams come on, doncha think that’s going to be noticed? It’s called positive feedback. Which do you think will communicate your attraction to him more- that or a plate of cookies?

If you want to twist the shiv just a bit, look him in they eye and tell him you stopped wearing a bra just for him, because the way he keeps looking at the girls really turns you on… But, you women are supposed to already know this stuff.

And you know why you won’t do it? Because the betas and those nasty gammas and omegas don’t deserve even a hint of what they’ll never be allowed to have.

You are in a damned if you do and damn if you don’t situation. If the 1st thing you say when they open is I have a boyfriend or not interested then you come across as a bitch. and it is perfectly reasonable to wait until they ask to say no thanks

@ Toad, once again I was thinking your avatar was tsk, and this advice from tsk seemed well…rather direct! But from you, no surprise!

You are likely correct that a hard NO is often better than the indirect no, because once again it’s a woman/man communications thing, women are taught to “be nice” when they say no so they beat around the bush about it (no pun intended) when in fact that may only confuse the guy who thinks, “if it’s not a NO it could still maybe someday be a yes.” So thanks for pointing that out, I agree.

Hercules has not showed up here unannounced for some time. I think his girlfriend realized last time that he wasn’t here only to check out the farm products so hopefully she’s put my place on the list of places they are “too busy” to visit! So I think she has solved that problem for me. Had he not hit on me when he was MARRIED he may have had a shot. But no, as you say he’d be worse to be married to than a Gamma. He revealed all I needed to know about his character right then, I am not silly enough to not know if he would do it to her, he’d do it to me. No, no, no!

As for the girls and the headlights, well to explain why would be tmi but just trust me on this. The girls need to be on lockdown. I am not brave enough to deal with what would happen otherwise! I have spent much of my life dressing DOWN on purpose to distract attention, mostly because if I don’t I not only get too much attention from the menfolk but other women start looking like they are going to burn me at the stake! If I had a different personality, perhaps I may have been playmate of the year (back in the day! I still turn heads but when I was 18, it was more like trains, planes, and automobiles were crashing around me at all times if I wasn’t careful!)

As for the pretty panty trick, I would not be above such shenanigans were he marriage minded and ready and I was feeling the same and it was all clicking! You bet! But a gal has to know the difference between that situation and a “no deal” one before she whips out the ribbons and lace! 😉

I am not brave enough to deal with what would happen otherwise! I have spent much of my life dressing DOWN on purpose to distract attention, mostly because if I don’t I not only get too much attention but the gals start looking like they are going to burn me at the stake!

Both of these are true, Bloom.
The only time I “dress to show” is when I’m already out with my FwB and he’s been needing a pick-me-up from his depression when it gets bad. Doing so for the hell of it/more often wouldn’t occur to me, plus it seems cruel to do to other men. A decent percentage of the ‘sphere has guys who complain about sexily (not slutty) dressed women and how they’re horrible teases. I’d rather my body not cause anyone to have a bad day…

After reading Artisanal Toad’s comment, I don’t know if I am more mad or disgusted. He’s right. Women are going to dither until hell freezes over. They might make an exception for an alpha cad but, for a guy who may go the distance….

After thinking about Dan’s post on his “successes”, the guys who don’t get their messages returned may be the better for it.

As for venues where the opposite sexes meet, for some mysterious reason, they all turn into sausage fests.

[Toad raises an eyebrow in surprise] Bloom, I told you not to take this personally. While you wrote the original post, I find the behavior so ubiquitous that my response was in general, which I explained to you. Still, you are a woman and it’s to be expected, so I assign no demerits.

You are likely correct that a hard NO is often better than the indirect no

No. The issue is one of standards and the woman must (and I do mean “must”) have some standard, some heuristic in making her decision about whether a man is marriage material *for her.* Unfortunately women are not wired to make binary decisions. It is only to the woman’s benefit that she give a hard “NO” to a man who does not meet her standards, because the message is the medium.

The woman capable of saying “NO” to a man is a woman who is capable of saying “NO” to their children, or to a salesman, or to anyone else… or even to herself. It reflects well on her ability to make a decision and stick with it. What is the point of winning a game that has no fixed rules? For the man who qualifies to the standard, the woman with said standard is assuring him that no other man who is not “up to snuff” will ever be able to worm his way into her affections. Think about it.

“if it’s not a NO it could still maybe someday be a yes.”

This does not in any way confuse a man who is aware of what women are like. It’s a clear message that says “I’m willing but you don’t have the key to open this lock… yet.” The issue could be circumstances, could be one of attraction, could be as simple as logistics, but the message is the same- be the man and solve the problem.

The girls need to be on lockdown. I am not brave enough to deal with what would happen otherwise! …other women start looking like they are going to burn me at the stake!

If so, you are at least 3 standard deviations from the norm, yet, that does not negate the advice I gave in any way. Again, the medium is the message and in *your* case the message would simply be delivered in a much more concrete fashion. Again, we were talking about accomplishing the goal of *demonstrating* physical attraction to the man *without* having sex and I stand by what I said. I won’t try to explain, but doing that is a form of submission to him that he will appreciate at a subconscious level or perhaps at a conscious level if he sufficiently aware. Especially for a woman as you have described yourself to be. Yet, I offered that as a matter of wisdom, not as a matter of moral judgment.

As a side note, I am currently working on the theory that the woman’s N is *not* in any way a major issue a man should consider when dealing with women, it’s the AN (number of adulteries committed) that is the issue. While God is not mocked, neither does God punish people for doing something that He did not forbid. If I am correct (and I think I am), it will turn a large portion of “red pill wisdom” on its head.

That is why I prefaced my previous comment with a warning not to take it personally AND said it was advice that had no application to a virgin. It *isn’t* that the virgin should be saying “not until you put a ring on it” but rather the virgin *must* understand that giving him her hymen *is* the act of giving herself to him in marriage. There is no other way the text can be read.

For a woman who is not a virgin and yet not married (from God’s perspective) there is *NO* prohibition on having sex with a man she is eligible to marry (which excludes incest, miscegenation and other stuff).

There is no such thing as the “sin” of “premarital sex.” Bang a virgin and she’s married to you because that’s what *GOD* said about it. Women who are not virgins but eligible to marry (meaning they are no longer married) are like used cars- nobody is going to get upset if you take it for a test drive. Or 2, or 3 or 4… but in keeping with the instruction of Paul in 1st Cor. 7, the point of the test drive is to nail down the sale.

Regardless of what the state or church says a woman’s marital status is determined by God’s Law. I would say that well over 99% of the women out there who think they are not married actually are. In fact, the only woman guaranteed to be eligible to marry is a virgin.

When God makes a covenant there is always shedding of blood. The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were all instituted with sacrifice and the shedding of blood. (Even the covenant of peace that God gave to Phineas) The New Covenant, of course, was instituted with the shed blood of Christ, once for all for all time. However, there is another covenant, that of marriage. Standard equipment on women is a hymen, designed to be broken (there’s your shedding of blood) in the act of becoming one flesh as she initiates the marriage covenant with a man. With that act, in accordance with Genesis 2:24, she is married.

Between that and the commentary in Malachi 2, there is actually a question as to whether a marriage between a man and a woman who is not a virgin is a covenant marriage, but that is speculation on my part. I don’t think it matters for the millions of women who are no longer virgins because the rules of marriage apply whether or not it’s a covenant marriage.

Regardless of her circumstances, the woman who is married yet not with her husband is in adultery with any man she has sex with who is not her lawful husband. She has 4 ways of being released from that marriage: In general, her father can annul the marriage according to his authority given in Numbers 30 (In your case, I agree with Ton, talk to your older brother, who was your nearest adult blood relative at the time. Or, put him in contact with me and I’ll explain it to him) or her husband can die. Specifically, her unbelieving husband can divorce her for her adultery or refuse to live with his Christian wife, in either case she is free. If her father lets the marriage stand and her husband is a Christian, forbidden to divorce his wife for any reason (1st Cor. 7:11), then she can either be reconciled to him or stay separated, single and chaste.

I strongly suspect that the charts and graphs demonstrating the woman’s N prior to [official marriage] strongly correlates to the likelihood of the [official marriage] failing is a case of seeing a phenomena that doesn’t exist. The woman is married to the guy she gave her virginity to and since her father didn’t annul the marriage (how was he to know she got married or that he could annul it?), every single sexual liaison after that was an instance of adultery, including her state and church sanctioned official “marriage.” (c.f. Romans 7:1-3)

Since current evidence demonstrates that (at best) only about 20% of people in the church are virgins when they get married and only about 5% of the ones in the general population are virgins when they marry, it is reasonable to assume that between 80% and 95% of the couples in any given church are living together in state and church sanctioned adultery.

Yes, I realize what I’ve said is in complete disagreement with virtually everything Christians have ever been taught about sex and marriage. That, unfortunately, is the legacy bestowed upon the church by the organization that’s run by the guy with the funny hat. The only question, at the end of the day, is who you’re going to listen to: the guy with the funny hat or God. They can’t both be right.

Think about it ton. That’s what the hard no is supposed to do. By getting rid of the orbiters and their steady supply of attention, when she finally gets the approval/validation from a man that’s fit to rule her, she’ll squirm in ecstasy like a beagle pup getting some attention.

When I was dating, primarily online, I’d message numerous guys and a few of those messages would lead to a bit of light chatting. Once I got the impression one person was interested, though, I’d usually drop the others. Logistically, it was just confusing to trade messages with multiple people and keep their information straight. I hadn’t met them, so all the text would blur together. Once we got to the point where we were arranging to meet, they were always the only people I messaged. It felt disloyal to entertain the idea of more than one guy and I thought it sounded like a disaster in the making, having to eventually choose. When I met my now boyfriend, after just a few dates, I mentioned that I don’t see more than one person at a time and he told me he never had either. I just don’t understand how you can set a goal of marriage and children (which I still feel most women want, even if they deny it) and decide that this is the path that will get you there. Had my boyfriend found out I was dating multiple guys, I think he’d have ended things early on, as would I in the reverse scenario. We’re too old to play games.

You don’t understand. What you describe as “dating multiple men at the same time” is not actually dating multiple men at the same time. It is cheating. If I had the perfect girlfriend, beautiful, funny, clever, whatever but I found it she was “dating multiple men” I would be history within 30s. What you describe is disrespectful to the men and to the girl herself. Anyway, everybody does what he wants. Just know that from a man’s point of view, there is almost nothing more disgusting than a girl who acts like that and no quality man in his right man would want to associate his name to her. So, to get a quality man, “dating multiple men at the same time” would not be the best strategy.